| *** markvoelker has joined #openstack-tc | 00:26 | |
| *** markvoelker has quit IRC | 00:30 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 01:17 | |
| *** markvoelker has joined #openstack-tc | 01:25 | |
| *** markvoelker has quit IRC | 01:30 | |
| *** ricolin has joined #openstack-tc | 01:48 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 01:48 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 01:49 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 01:49 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 01:49 | |
| *** ricolin has quit IRC | 02:04 | |
| *** ricolin has joined #openstack-tc | 02:05 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 02:06 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 02:18 | |
| *** ricolin has quit IRC | 02:32 | |
| *** ricolin has joined #openstack-tc | 02:32 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 02:37 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 02:49 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 02:59 | |
| *** ricolin has quit IRC | 03:21 | |
| *** adriant has quit IRC | 04:05 | |
| *** adriant has joined #openstack-tc | 04:06 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 05:00 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 05:04 | |
| *** Luzi has joined #openstack-tc | 05:05 | |
| *** adriant has quit IRC | 05:10 | |
| *** adriant has joined #openstack-tc | 05:11 | |
| *** markvoelker has joined #openstack-tc | 05:31 | |
| *** markvoelker has quit IRC | 05:36 | |
| *** jaosorior has quit IRC | 05:56 | |
| *** lpetrut has joined #openstack-tc | 06:20 | |
| *** markvoelker has joined #openstack-tc | 06:31 | |
| *** markvoelker has quit IRC | 06:36 | |
| *** ricolin has joined #openstack-tc | 06:38 | |
| *** tosky has joined #openstack-tc | 07:23 | |
| *** jaosorior has joined #openstack-tc | 07:42 | |
| *** jaosorior has quit IRC | 08:01 | |
| *** lpetrut has quit IRC | 08:08 | |
| *** markvoelker has joined #openstack-tc | 08:10 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 08:11 | |
| *** markvoelker has quit IRC | 08:15 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 08:20 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 08:34 | |
| *** jaosorior has joined #openstack-tc | 08:37 | |
| *** jaosorior has quit IRC | 08:49 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 08:59 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 09:27 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 09:27 | |
| *** markvoelker has joined #openstack-tc | 10:11 | |
| *** markvoelker has quit IRC | 10:20 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 10:21 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 10:27 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 11:00 | |
| *** jaosorior has joined #openstack-tc | 11:02 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 11:20 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 11:23 | |
| *** lpetrut has joined #openstack-tc | 11:24 | |
| *** lpetrut has quit IRC | 11:30 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 11:32 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 11:40 | |
| *** markvoelker has joined #openstack-tc | 12:10 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 12:11 | |
| *** markvoelker has quit IRC | 12:16 | |
| *** markvoelker has joined #openstack-tc | 12:38 | |
| *** jaosorior has quit IRC | 12:41 | |
| *** markvoelker has quit IRC | 12:42 | |
| *** Luzi has quit IRC | 12:44 | |
| *** markvoelker has joined #openstack-tc | 12:44 | |
| *** markvoelker has quit IRC | 12:44 | |
| *** markvoelker has joined #openstack-tc | 12:45 | |
| *** lpetrut has joined #openstack-tc | 12:52 | |
| *** jaosorior has joined #openstack-tc | 13:04 | |
| evrardjp | o/ | 13:05 |
|---|---|---|
| *** mriedem has joined #openstack-tc | 13:07 | |
| asettle | o/ | 13:09 |
| *** ijolliffe has joined #openstack-tc | 13:18 | |
| *** dklyle has quit IRC | 13:35 | |
| *** dklyle has joined #openstack-tc | 13:35 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 13:40 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 13:43 | |
| ricolin | o/ | 13:43 |
| mugsie | o/ | 13:43 |
| *** AlanClark has joined #openstack-tc | 13:46 | |
| *** jaosorior has quit IRC | 13:51 | |
| *** jeremyfreudberg has joined #openstack-tc | 13:51 | |
| *** lpetrut has quit IRC | 13:51 | |
| *** zbitter has quit IRC | 13:53 | |
| *** zbitter has joined #openstack-tc | 13:54 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 14:22 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 14:42 | |
| *** AlanClark has quit IRC | 14:45 | |
| *** AlanClark has joined #openstack-tc | 14:45 | |
| mnaser | office hours, anyone? :) | 15:01 |
| ttx | o/ | 15:01 |
| *** diablo_rojo has joined #openstack-tc | 15:01 | |
| mnaser | https://governance.openstack.org/election/ | 15:01 |
| mnaser | looks like we're slowly building up a list of people | 15:01 |
| fungi | yup | 15:01 |
| mnaser | no tc candidates yet | 15:01 |
| *** AlanClark has quit IRC | 15:02 | |
| fungi | i have a bunch of ptl nominees to go through and approve once my meetings are over | 15:02 |
| *** AlanClark has joined #openstack-tc | 15:02 | |
| ttx | Could we agree that we are not going to change the number of TC seats elected while the election is in midflight? it's hard enough on election officials as it is | 15:02 |
| fungi | but yeah, i don't see any tc nominees proposed yet | 15:02 |
| ttx | I know people are all excisted about the urgency of it, but then when I raised it 6 months ago the reception was pretty cold | 15:02 |
| mnaser | ttx: i agree on that, but i'm all for waiting and seeing what the outcome is | 15:03 |
| mnaser | (i.e. if we dont have 6 people step up) | 15:03 |
| fungi | we usually don't see tc nominees in the first day or two anyway | 15:03 |
| ttx | Well if we don;t have 6 people step up, we actually will have a smaller TC, since that is how the rules are not describing that corner case | 15:03 |
| dhellmann | Has anyone been recruiting TC candidates? | 15:04 |
| mnaser | personally, no | 15:04 |
| fungi | i have encouraged some folks to run, and i know at least one who is planning to do so | 15:04 |
| ttx | I know one is coming. Would be great if incumbents that plan to rerun would apply. | 15:04 |
| ttx | Because at this point I'm sure it's clear there will be open seats | 15:05 |
| ttx | so no need to wait to encourage participation :) | 15:05 |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 15:07 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 15:07 | |
| mnaser | its looking like there will be presence of a sizable number of teams at the ptg | 15:08 |
| evrardjp | I have started the recruiting | 15:08 |
| evrardjp | I will apply too | 15:08 |
| ttx | Regarding release naming, I feel like the next steps are: decide if we select a new system just for upcoming V-Z or once that would survive the rollover, and (2) run a TC condorcet poll (including option "keep things as-is | 15:09 |
| evrardjp | (not that I have got positive results on the recruiting yet, with 2 no, but at least I planted a seed) | 15:09 |
| ttx | to select the likely winner | 15:09 |
| ttx | s/once/one | 15:10 |
| mugsie | My view is this is for V-Z, and lets have the larger discussion after that | 15:10 |
| smcginnis | Please let's not change anything until after we get to Z. :) | 15:10 |
| evrardjp | I think we have to deal it before we are at "after Z" | 15:11 |
| evrardjp | so that we have time to adapt the tooling | 15:11 |
| evrardjp | I think we'll have surprises | 15:11 |
| ttx | smcginnis: only if you volunteer to run it until Z. I've been there, it's just not fun | 15:11 |
| mugsie | ttx, hense my suggestion that the TC decides | 15:12 |
| evrardjp | ttx: not sure if this will change | 15:12 |
| ttx | I find it silly to burn out volunteers because our system is painful | 15:12 |
| evrardjp | ttx: agreed on that | 15:12 |
| smcginnis | Is it really painful though? | 15:12 |
| ttx | evrardjp: if the system we pick is nearly deterministic, then the [ain goes away | 15:12 |
| mugsie | the TC at the time can do whatever they want to chose a name starting with the required letter | 15:12 |
| evrardjp | but here we are trying to fix multiple problems at the same time, it makes it less clear what we are trying to fix | 15:12 |
| smcginnis | I think the main issue now has just been lack of time by the person that was going to do it. | 15:12 |
| smcginnis | Not that the process itself is all that painful. | 15:12 |
| evrardjp | ttx: agreed on that | 15:13 |
| mnaser | contributed by the fact that the process doesnt always work | 15:13 |
| mugsie | no voluenteer needed, no public consultation, no community heartache | 15:13 |
| ttx | smcginnis: ask anyone who has run it. It's just painful because people care a lot and there are so many ways the official can piss them off | 15:13 |
| mnaser | i.e. we have a summit in shanghai and there's literally almost no words that start with "u" | 15:13 |
| mugsie | s/consultation/election/ | 15:13 |
| evrardjp | mugsie: name decided on a beer mat way? :) | 15:13 |
| mnaser | which opens the flood gates for "ok i guess we can call it whatever we want now" and then we enter this not-ideal spot where we have to decide | 15:13 |
| ttx | mugsie: if smoeone chooses, someone will disagree with how you chose | 15:14 |
| mnaser | ++ | 15:14 |
| mnaser | exactly | 15:14 |
| mnaser | the choice can be pinned at people, but a process cannot | 15:14 |
| ttx | mugsie: like people saying "it should be the community selecting" | 15:14 |
| smcginnis | I actually do like the idea of the TC just picking. But I really would like to avoid moving away from alphabetical naming until at least we get to Z. I think that would just be confusing to our users. | 15:14 |
| mnaser | i dont think we're moving away from alphabetical naming | 15:14 |
| mnaser | i think we're just trying to figure out the name selection | 15:14 |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 15:14 | |
| mnaser | and imho, as a tc member, i dont want to decide the release name nor do i think we're elected for that type of thing | 15:15 |
| mnaser | i much rather delegate that to the osf marketing people to find a snazzy name instead of sitting and picking a release name | 15:15 |
| evrardjp | mnaser: they were proposal to go away from alphabetical naming | 15:15 |
| mugsie | ttx: the people who want the public choice, need to find a solution with the people who have problems with doing public votes | 15:15 |
| ttx | I ran nearly half of those namings. It was fun when I was throwing darts at a board full of suggestions. It stopped being fun when we asked people to come up with names, because then they would care if their name was eliminated one way or another | 15:15 |
| dhellmann | The vociferous reaction to my minimal involvement this time is certainly making it easier for me to step away. | 15:15 |
| evrardjp | dhellmann: mmm | 15:16 |
| evrardjp | that's sad to hear | 15:16 |
| ttx | Every single person that actually volunteered to run that process will tell you how unnecessarily painful it can be | 15:16 |
| mugsie | the middle ground is, a, we (the TC) choose it. or b) it is ICAO | 15:16 |
| mnaser | or we let a group of people that have openstack's best interest to also choose it | 15:16 |
| ttx | mugsie: or city names. Get the TC to pick over a very limited set of options | 15:16 |
| evrardjp | mugsie: or just letters | 15:16 |
| ttx | then nobody has time to get into favorites | 15:16 |
| smcginnis | New project: openstack-randomnameselector | 15:17 |
| mnaser | because a release name _is_ a marketing thing, and maybe having interesting release names could help us gain traction, idk | 15:17 |
| evrardjp | smcginnis: woot | 15:17 |
| mugsie | honestly, there was such a backlash from some camps this time, it is not worht the time (or all this time talking about it) | 15:17 |
| evrardjp | mugsie: agreed | 15:17 |
| ttx | yes, which is why I'd rather have us do a Condorcet poll to select the way forward and be DONE WITH IT | 15:17 |
| evrardjp | why not let the foundation come with a list of valid names (or just one), and we use smcginnis openstack-randomnameselector to find the one ? | 15:18 |
| mugsie | yes. did the timeline in corvus's email exipre yet? | 15:18 |
| mnaser | ttx: while i think it would make life easy, the only thing that makes me feel meh is like | 15:18 |
| mnaser | tc members during $period get to pick $period+N names | 15:18 |
| mnaser | which doesn't feel as fair, i dunno :) | 15:18 |
| evrardjp | it's so easy to bikeshed on this, while we have so much hard time at making openstack client the only client in openstack | 15:18 |
| ttx | mnaser: well, life is hard. And tc-members in the future can change again if they care | 15:18 |
| mnaser | tbh i really like the opendaylight way of going based on a periodic table | 15:18 |
| mugsie | honesetly, if the idea isnt on the ML or in a gerrit review, it is not in consideration (IMHO) | 15:19 |
| fungi | ideally in a gerrit review mentioned on the ml | 15:19 |
| ttx | mnaser: it's the same as the city names. One way to come with a reaonsably-nice sounding name without becoming a pissing contest] | 15:19 |
| mnaser | ttx: right but the periodic table is very predictable :) | 15:19 |
| smcginnis | Names of recipes from the Great British Bakeoff. | 15:20 |
| mnaser | a city name adds some sort of "i prefer this over that" thing | 15:20 |
| ttx | mnaser: you'd lose the easy-to-remember ordering? | 15:20 |
| mnaser | ttx: no, as in a no one gets to decide what the next release name is, it's already in the periodic table. you like it or not, it's there | 15:20 |
| mnaser | city names involves selection | 15:21 |
| mnaser | people get unhappy, blabal | 15:21 |
| mugsie | but was can't move the naming scheme to the element names (yet) (unless we did alphabetical element names, whoch would be weird) | 15:21 |
| evrardjp | smcginnis: that won't please the french | 15:21 |
| smcginnis | Alphabetical list of French wine regions? | 15:21 |
| ttx | smcginnis: english don;t do cooking | 15:21 |
| evrardjp | not enough letters | 15:21 |
| smcginnis | Cheeses? | 15:21 |
| evrardjp | wait | 15:21 |
| evrardjp | cheeses and beer probably have something. | 15:22 |
| evrardjp | You're holding something good there smcginnis! | 15:22 |
| smcginnis | ;) | 15:22 |
| ttx | No french wine region starting with X or W | 15:22 |
| ricolin | What's been missing in our current document is to specific writing down who or which group (TCs?) got the final decision through what method (a poll?). Otherwise IMO what's been fighting now will keep going what so ever. Other than that, I think we should keep our old way before z released. | 15:22 |
| ttx | otherwise I'd have suggested that already | 15:22 |
| mnaser | i mean | 15:22 |
| ricolin | I won't describe it's painful, but do wish to make all happy even though it's next to impossible | 15:23 |
| mnaser | i know the osf keeps the next summit locations generally private.. | 15:23 |
| smcginnis | I think as corvus pointed out, the process was pretty clear. We just didn't follow it. | 15:23 |
| mnaser | but can we at least ask where the next cities are (privately) to know if our process works? | 15:23 |
| mnaser | (until Z) | 15:23 |
| mnaser | assuming things are booked that far out | 15:23 |
| fungi | part of the problem is they don't know that far out | 15:23 |
| ttx | mnaser: they are not | 15:23 |
| mugsie | I doubt Y or Z is booked yet | 15:23 |
| ttx | actually V and W are not booked either | 15:23 |
| fungi | usually they are juggling possible contracts in multiple cities | 15:24 |
| mnaser | ok so in that case we really dont have any lead if it works or not | 15:24 |
| ttx | and also looking into going one "global" summit per year | 15:24 |
| fungi | which is part of why i think tying the naming to conference locations is just generally a bad idea because it places our determination of cycle labels on another party whose timelines are not influenced by our need for labels | 15:24 |
| ttx | in which case the system utterly fails | 15:24 |
| mnaser | yes, that is concernning | 15:25 |
| fungi | we're at a point in this project where we need to have a consistent way to refer to future cycles further in advance than the osf is going to be able to announce conference locales | 15:25 |
| mnaser | what if we opened up all name choices, but only allowed atc's to vote and propose name? | 15:25 |
| mnaser | to avoid stack mcstackface | 15:26 |
| mugsie | mnaser: the issue wasn't the names, it was the TC removing names befoer the vote that was the issue | 15:26 |
| mnaser | right, but we would no longer remove names | 15:26 |
| mugsie | and that is ripe for issues, and a re-occurance | 15:26 |
| mnaser | anyone can suggest any name | 15:26 |
| ttx | I like the periodic table, because (1) all names are good (2) they are likely non-trademarkable and (3) you can just say you will pick the first one in alpha order, being truly deterministic. A bit like the ICAO without the "alpha" and "delta" issues | 15:26 |
| smcginnis | So maybe we should have polls for a few separate things: 1) Should we diverge from alphabetical naming? 2) Should we change the criteria for picking a name, 2a) if yes, collect and vote on a set of possible alternative naming methods. | 15:27 |
| ttx | But since one project already had that great idea we should find our own source of greatness | 15:27 |
| mugsie | well, we would want to limit the names - I don't want to run a poll with some names in it | 15:27 |
| dhellmann | So it would be the names of elements in alphabetical order, not their order in the table? | 15:27 |
| smcginnis | Periodic table is too over used by now I think. | 15:27 |
| fungi | dhellmann: i think the proposal was names by atomic number | 15:27 |
| ttx | smcginnis: agree | 15:27 |
| mugsie | so someone would have to filter it, which comes back to the original issue, and someone getting abuse over removing names | 15:28 |
| mnaser | no, no one filters it if we open it up to all atc's | 15:28 |
| mnaser | and lets trust our community to not propose something obscene | 15:28 |
| ttx | fungi: well, obviously, I know the table by heart but I suspect most people with a life don't | 15:28 |
| ttx | so ordering will need a reference card | 15:28 |
| dhellmann | fungi ok, that’s going to require a lot of tool changes :/ | 15:28 |
| fungi | but it helps people learn the periodic table ;) | 15:28 |
| mugsie | so if an ATC suggests something that is obsence in an other language, we should just use it? | 15:28 |
| ttx | fungi: nice try | 15:28 |
| mnaser | mugsie: lets trust our community to do the right thing | 15:28 |
| mnaser | if they do that, we can take action. but i try to hope that they dont. | 15:29 |
| smcginnis | mugsie: OpenStack Feck? | 15:29 |
| ricolin | I suspect it will be easier if we just don't use official wiki to put down names before they're certified | 15:29 |
| mugsie | they may not even know it is an issue | 15:29 |
| ttx | OpenStack Focus | 15:29 |
| mnaser | then the voting process should flush them out :) | 15:29 |
| ttx | not an issue, until i pronounce it | 15:29 |
| smcginnis | ttx: Hah! | 15:29 |
| mugsie | and the TC has released a poll that is offenceive to a group of people | 15:29 |
| dhellmann | What about the names of cities where contributors live? | 15:29 |
| ttx | dhellmann: then it becomes a contest again | 15:30 |
| ttx | unless you have a way to select the winner | 15:30 |
| ttx | (like largest city, or highest number of contributors) | 15:30 |
| dhellmann | Alphabetical? | 15:30 |
| mnaser | what about: any atc proposes a name, atc votes on name, tc reviews (if offensive), osf reviews (if copyright), release name. | 15:30 |
| mnaser | (and the name has to start with the letter name) | 15:30 |
| smcginnis | Infrastructure themed? Bridges, famous architects, etc? | 15:31 |
| mugsie | you need to swap vote and TC filtering | 15:31 |
| ttx | mnaser: why did you consider my name offensive?? | 15:31 |
| mnaser | ttx: this part can be done privately between the tc to not hurt feelings and get things pointed at people | 15:31 |
| ttx | mnaser: I expect people will ask that ^ | 15:31 |
| mnaser | i'm hoping that we come up to a decision together and stick to it (inside the tc) | 15:31 |
| mugsie | anyway, we have more than enough suggested processes, and feedback form them, so lets limit ourselves to them | 15:31 |
| mugsie | people have had a week to public propose new ones, and we have been sociallising these ones to the community | 15:32 |
| mugsie | so lets not add even more | 15:32 |
| ttx | mnaser: It's not binary unfortunately. Is GR offensive? We are still not sure. Meiji was awesome in Japan, and very offensive in Korea. | 15:32 |
| ttx | If we keep the idea of asking community for names, then we should not change anything | 15:32 |
| ttx | the current process is the best we have for that | 15:33 |
| evrardjp | what's wrong with stacky mcstackface? | 15:33 |
| mugsie | I like ttx's suggestion to vote on these for V->Z this week | 15:33 |
| mnaser | so why dont we bypass us and give it straight to the osf which can do all the "legal" and "ethical" (i cant think of a better word) aspect | 15:33 |
| mugsie | evrardjp: 2 words | 15:33 |
| ttx | evrardjp: too may letters | 15:33 |
| fungi | perhaps the litmus test can be "will some poll participants find this option offensive enough the tc would be embarrassed for it to appear in the list" | 15:33 |
| mugsie | mnaser: that is a suggested process on gerrit already | 15:33 |
| ttx | fungi: again, very subjective, where is the limit | 15:33 |
| fungi | i agree | 15:33 |
| evrardjp | mugsie: ttx I know. But hey, why can't we laugh about this? :p | 15:33 |
| mnaser | i think the suggested process is the osf decides a name, not that the community doess | 15:33 |
| ttx | fungi: like GR we could not get clear signals from China on how offensive or weird that would be | 15:33 |
| ricolin | I think we already got enough suggestion and discussion, so a inner poll will be nice (as ttx suggested) | 15:34 |
| ttx | mnaser: I'm not sure i want to be the one they blame for not picking their preferred name | 15:34 |
| mugsie | why give it to the osf for filtering, and not the TC? | 15:34 |
| ttx | mugsie: ++ | 15:34 |
| ttx | The only added value teh OSF brings is access to trademark lawyers | 15:35 |
| mnaser | because the osf probably has better resources than tc | 15:35 |
| mnaser | in terms of like | 15:35 |
| mnaser | reaching out to community and figuring out the "does this piss off your community" | 15:35 |
| fungi | i think we had signals that it would be weird for openstack to choose a name in gr, and similarly that it would look bad if we chose the name of the location of a major uprising on its 10th anniversary, but not that they were too offensive to include in the poll | 15:35 |
| mnaser | vs us who should spend our time figuring out why we have 600 different python clients :) | 15:35 |
| ttx | mnaser: I'm not sure we do... This is a very subjective question | 15:35 |
| dhellmann | That didn’t really work this time, did it? | 15:35 |
| ttx | and some people will find it offensive that you REMOVED a word | 15:36 |
| ttx | so you can't even play it safe | 15:36 |
| mnaser | ttx: i think the osf staff have plenty of reach (i.e. do you know anyone in $some_region user group or who runs the meetups there?) | 15:36 |
| dhellmann | I like the idea of finding a set of innocuous words to choose from or cycle through. | 15:36 |
| ttx | mnaser: we had an employee on staff that is Chinese and yet we could not clearly say if GR was OK | 15:36 |
| mnaser | like i dont know anything about the vietnam region but they sure seem to be hosting awesome events and im sure they have a reach there | 15:36 |
| fungi | in hindsight part of the issue was that we attempted to optimize the list and reduce the number of options to ones which we thought had the least chance of getting rejected for marketing or legal reasons | 15:36 |
| fungi | rather than letting those rejections happen at the point in the process they're supposed to | 15:37 |
| dhellmann | That had nothing to do with why I dropped any names. | 15:37 |
| ttx | dhellmann: ++ it is the only way to remove people unhappiness that their pet name was not chosen, not selected, removed for obscure reasons | 15:37 |
| mnaser | maybe more people will get on the tc if they know they get to pick release names | 15:37 |
| mnaser | :-P | 15:37 |
| ttx | OK, next topic :) | 15:38 |
| ttx | Metting next week? | 15:38 |
| ttx | damn | 15:38 |
| dtroyer | mnaser: this is actually a chance to counter those who say the TC doesn't make enough decisions | 15:38 |
| dhellmann | So let’s argue over what lists of innocuous names to use! :) | 15:38 |
| ttx | Meeting next week? | 15:38 |
| mnaser | yeah, i should be sending out all the info to prepare for the meeting soon | 15:38 |
| ttx | dhellmann: it's actually not that easy. ICAO would be great if some of the names were not overloaded for software (Alpha, Delta) | 15:39 |
| dhellmann | Yeah, that’s not good | 15:39 |
| mugsie | ttx: for V-Z that isn't an issue | 15:39 |
| ttx | Or Kilo | 15:39 |
| ttx | mugsie: yes, and I support that option now for V-Z | 15:39 |
| ttx | I like the "it is what it is" definitive side of it | 15:40 |
| mugsie | yeah | 15:40 |
| ttx | mnaser: cool | 15:40 |
| mugsie | do we want to do a poll then? | 15:41 |
| ricolin | +1 for poll | 15:41 |
| mnaser | imho just vote on the gerrit review that makes the most sense to you | 15:41 |
| dhellmann | Polling whom? Asking what? | 15:42 |
| mugsie | I would prefer a poll | 15:42 |
| mugsie | dhellmann: as ttx suggested - a TC poll to choose the review we merge in to the repo | 15:42 |
| dhellmann | Ah | 15:42 |
| dhellmann | Sure, then | 15:42 |
| ricolin | dhellmann, TCs or who ever got the decisions to resolve these:) | 15:42 |
| ttx | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_military_phonetic_spelling_alphabets for alternates | 15:42 |
| mugsie | this is very much our problem ricolin :) | 15:43 |
| ricolin | mugsie, I know:) | 15:43 |
| ttx | I like 1918 British Army radiotelephony spelling alphabet | 15:43 |
| ttx | Ack, Beer, Cork | 15:43 |
| mnaser | if we do a poll does this mean we're merging the review that we decide on without people RC+2ing it? | 15:43 |
| mnaser | im just wondering why we need a poll here and why not just vote on the gerrit review | 15:44 |
| mnaser | (do we not want people to know what picked what?) | 15:44 |
| mnaser | if that's the intention, that's fine, i just want us to be clear about it | 15:44 |
| mugsie | mnaser: because thisis very much a ranked thing - I like one, could live with others | 15:44 |
| fungi | the problem becomes if multiple options get sufficient votes to approve | 15:45 |
| mugsie | and distincntly don't want others | 15:45 |
| mnaser | ok, ranking makes sense | 15:45 |
| mugsie | I would suggest a copy of the results go in the review as we +W it | 15:45 |
| fungi | but perhaps the solution is everyone vote on all the options and then any which have enough to approve go into the ranked vote and we approve whichever of those comes out on top? | 15:46 |
| mnaser | fungi: nah i think logistically voting solves this and makes it easy | 15:46 |
| mugsie | fungi: at this point I just want it done | 15:46 |
| fungi | sure | 15:46 |
| ttx | mugsie: god yes | 15:46 |
| mnaser | so | 15:46 |
| mnaser | any pollers? :) | 15:46 |
| fungi | i'm already in the middle of running a bunch of rather important polls, so going to claim not-it ;) | 15:47 |
| mugsie | there is a guide in the elections repo isnt there? | 15:47 |
| mugsie | I can do that now | 15:47 |
| mugsie | this time next week for the end of the poll? | 15:49 |
| fungi | yeah, see https://governance.openstack.org/election/process.html#tc-election-round | 15:49 |
| fungi | that's about as detailed as we get about explaining how to create a poll in civs (in other words, not very) | 15:50 |
| fungi | but the interface is fairly intuitive | 15:50 |
| mugsie | yeap - following that now | 15:50 |
| mugsie | thanks fungi | 15:51 |
| fungi | np | 15:51 |
| dhellmann | Thanks mugsie | 15:51 |
| ricolin | mugsie, maybe we should close the poll before meeting next week so we will have chances to discuss what we gonna do with the polling result? | 15:52 |
| mugsie | ricolin: sure | 15:52 |
| ttx | mugsie: make it clear is to select for V-Z | 15:52 |
| * dhellmann goes back to nursing his cold | 15:52 | |
| ttx | because we'll clearly not vote the same if it's for rolling over | 15:53 |
| ttx | options should include "Keep current system" | 15:53 |
| ricolin | thanks mugsie | 15:53 |
| ricolin | dhellmann, take good care | 15:53 |
| fungi | the "kick the can down the road a couple more years" decision | 15:54 |
| ttx | mugsie: I'm not sure we should have options in there that would trigger tons of work, like "no more release names" | 15:55 |
| ttx | but meh | 15:55 |
| mugsie | well, this is going to the TC only, so I think we can trust them not to choose the "release team doesn't sleep between U and V" option | 15:56 |
| ttx | heh, i mean, it could, but whoever votes for gets to be on the V release team | 15:57 |
| mugsie | that sounds like a fair trade | 15:57 |
| ricolin | ttx that will solved it all:) | 15:58 |
| fungi | i also like the debian model of "just let the release team decide how and what the cycles will be labeled" | 15:58 |
| ttx | TIL" the ICAO alphabet is actually the NATO alphabet. Could be considered offensive in some countries | 15:58 |
| fungi | they're the ones doing the release management, i have no problem with them also being the ones who get to control that piece since it's integral to their automation/tooling | 15:59 |
| * ttx sighs | 15:59 | |
| mugsie | http://paste.openstack.org/show/766989/ is what I have - am I missing any? | 16:00 |
| fungi | i wouldn't want to pick a naming scheme/process which is hard on the release team from an automation standpoint | 16:00 |
| fungi | speaking of which, now it's time for the release team meeying | 16:00 |
| fungi | er, meeting | 16:00 |
| ttx | fungi: I guess that would be a good option. The Release management PTL for that cycle gets to decide. Could make it late though | 16:01 |
| fungi | hrm, yeah they'd need to pick further in advance, so could be deciding on behalf of a future release team in that case | 16:02 |
| *** jeremyfreudberg has quit IRC | 16:10 | |
| mugsie | tc-members: you should get email over the next bit to vote on the list | 16:11 |
| mugsie | vote on the list of optiont to name thigns | 16:11 |
| *** markvoelker has quit IRC | 16:15 | |
| *** markvoelker has joined #openstack-tc | 16:15 | |
| *** markvoelker has quit IRC | 16:27 | |
| *** markvoelker has joined #openstack-tc | 16:40 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 16:50 | |
| fungi | we have a tc candidate! and she's not even an incumbent ;) | 16:56 |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 17:02 | |
| * diablo_rojo looks around the room to see if anyone else noticed | 17:03 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 17:04 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 17:04 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 17:04 | |
| ricolin | diablo_rojo, I'm now!:) | 17:09 |
| diablo_rojo | :) | 17:10 |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 17:35 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 17:35 | |
| *** AlanClark has quit IRC | 17:53 | |
| *** ricolin has quit IRC | 17:55 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 18:29 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 18:32 | |
| *** ijolliffe has quit IRC | 18:53 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 18:55 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 19:01 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 19:03 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 19:04 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 19:05 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 19:05 | |
| *** spsurya has quit IRC | 19:07 | |
| *** diablo_rojo has quit IRC | 19:27 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 20:36 | |
| *** lpetrut has joined #openstack-tc | 20:45 | |
| *** lpetrut has quit IRC | 20:51 | |
| *** flwang has quit IRC | 21:13 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 21:26 | |
| *** markvoelker has quit IRC | 21:32 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 21:38 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 21:43 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 21:59 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 22:04 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 22:10 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 22:17 | |
| *** tosky has quit IRC | 22:29 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 22:31 | |
| *** diablo_rojo has joined #openstack-tc | 22:32 | |
| *** markvoelker has joined #openstack-tc | 22:35 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 22:35 | |
| *** markvoelker has quit IRC | 22:40 | |
| *** markvoelker has joined #openstack-tc | 23:01 | |
| *** markvoelker has quit IRC | 23:11 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.15.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!